Kant vs. Mill

According to utilitarianism, if you lend your car to a friend and that friend drives drunk and kills someone, your action as well as your friend’s action is deemed immoral. The moral action of helping a friend out turns immoral once the overall happiness as a result of that action decreased. This is counter-intuitive to most modern-day thinking as most people think there is an end to when you should be subjected to the morality of an outcome. Kant adresses this by emphasizing that it is not the result but the intent of an action that is of importance. So you lending your car to a friend in need is always a moral action. As far as the drunk driving friend, what if his intent was positive? What if he was drunk and he got a call saying his father was in the hospital and simply wanted to be there to support his father? His intent was arguably altruistic, but the result was horrific. What does Kant say about that?

---